Evolution is based on long periods of time. If we can prove that time periods have been shorter, this debunks evolution because their theories need a lot of time. There is enough evidence of a relationship between the solar wind and radioactive decay rates, so that its time to revise the whole "rock dating" system. In fact its time for science to accept that life has arrived here on earth over short time frames:

Old Law:Radioactive decay is an absolute constant , everything has been tried in laboratories to affect the rate without any detectable changes to decay ratesThe age of ancient rocks can therefore be accurately measured based on recently measured decay rates.

Failure of the Old Law:Two tests they have neglected to apply to decay rates:1) Although they have played around with electromagnetic force-fields in laboratories, when testing decay rates they have not yet increased or decreased the strength of the entire planet's electro-magnetic force-field (which extends for thousands of miles beyond our atmosphere).2) They have not consistently tested decay rates against the varying strength of solar flares.

2 Better Laws of radioactive decay rates:Law 1: radioactive decay rates slow down when the solar wind is stronger (during solar flares) http://phys.org/news201795438.htmlLaw 2: conversely radioactive decay rates will increase when the solar wind is weakerThe electro-magnetic field protects the earth from the solar wind, so we can introduce two more laws:Law 3: (based on law 1) The weaker the field the stronger the solar wind that reaches earth, and the slower the radioactive decay.Law 4: (based on Law 2) Conversely the stronger the field the faster the decay

Knowing that earth's magnetic field was at least 300% stronger in the past, we can apply LAW 4, and we have an easy conclusion, radioactive decay was much much faster in the past. Bye bye evolution! Sorry your old dates have been greatly overestimated.

NewPath, "long periods of times" make the Evolutionist position seemingly more defensible. They are seriously in trouble the shorter the periods. But they won't be out of all problems, even if the periods were longer.

As for radioactive dating: Decay rates are assumptions, so are initial conditions.

NewPath, "long periods of times" make the Evolutionist position seemingly more defensible. They are seriously in trouble the shorter the periods. But they won't be out of all problems, even if the periods were longer.

As for radioactive dating: Decay rates are assumptions, so are initial conditions.

They do actually measure some of the rates, its not all assumption. I think you have been reading too many creationist websites which are very biased sorry to say. Yes some of the rates are based on eachother, and calibrated against pre-assumed evolutionary timeframes, yet some radioactive decay rates are actually measured.

By showing that their own decay rates used to be a lot faster, I am showing that time frames are short, which as you say puts them seriously in trouble.

You can't measure decay rates that occurred long ago. You can only measure present day decay rates or used previously recorded decay rates and then extrapolate to assume what they may have been in the past. And for dating methods you are actually dealing with assumed decay rates in the past.But then the whole game of evolution deals with assumptions.

Evolution is based on long periods of time. If we can prove that time periods have been shorter, this debunks evolution because their theories need a lot of time. There is enough evidence of a relationship between the solar wind and radioactive decay rates, so that its time to revise the whole "rock dating" system. In fact its time for science to accept that life has arrived here on earth over short time frames:

Old Law:Radioactive decay is an absolute constant , everything has been tried in laboratories to affect the rate without any detectable changes to decay ratesThe age of ancient rocks can therefore be accurately measured based on recently measured decay rates.

Failure of the Old Law:Two tests they have neglected to apply to decay rates:1) Although they have played around with electromagnetic force-fields in laboratories, when testing decay rates they have not yet increased or decreased the strength of the entire planet's electro-magnetic force-field (which extends for thousands of miles beyond our atmosphere).2) They have not consistently tested decay rates against the varying strength of solar flares.

2 Better Laws of radioactive decay rates:Law 1: radioactive decay rates slow down when the solar wind is stronger (during solar flares) http://phys.org/news201795438.htmlLaw 2: conversely radioactive decay rates will increase when the solar wind is weakerThe electro-magnetic field protects the earth from the solar wind, so we can introduce two more laws:Law 3: (based on law 1) The weaker the field the stronger the solar wind that reaches earth, and the slower the radioactive decay.Law 4: (based on Law 2) Conversely the stronger the field the faster the decay

Knowing that earth's magnetic field was at least 300% stronger in the past, we can apply LAW 4, and we have an easy conclusion, radioactive decay was much much faster in the past. Bye bye evolution! Sorry your old dates have been greatly overestimated.

Problem 1. The earth's magnetic field can only deflect charged particles. Neutrinos are uncharged, which means that a change in the earth's magnetic field would have no impact on the decay rate change from neutrinos.Your new 'laws' won't work if the effect is caused by uncharged particles.

(Charged particles wouldn't be able to pass through the earth to create the night-time observations mentioned in the article)

Problem 2. Follow up investigations have failed to find supporting evidence that distance from the sun makes a difference in decay rates.http://donuts.berkel...rs/EarthSun.pdfIn conclusion, we find no evidence for correlations between the rates for the decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations (2.5–37) times smaller than those observed in previous experiments [1–3]. Our results strongly disfavor the suggestions by Jenkins et al. [4] of an annual variation based on a previously unobserved field produced by the Sun or the annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos reaching the Earth. Recently, Cooper [8] performed a very clever analysis of decay power data obtained from the 238Pu thermoelectric generator aboard the Cassini spacecraft. The results of this analysis also strongly disagree with the hypothesis of a correlation between nuclear decay rates and the distance of the source to the Sun.

Problem 3. The amount of variation suggested is too small to change radiometric dates.

You can't measure decay rates that occurred long ago. You can only measure present day decay rates or used previously recorded decay rates and then extrapolate to assume what they may have been in the past. And for dating methods you are actually dealing with assumed decay rates in the past.But then the whole game of evolution deals with assumptions.

Its true, but modern decay rates are assumed to be absolutely constant, unaffected by pressure and temperature, and so can be applied to all ages. As you say their whole game is based on these type of assumptions. That is what I am debunking in this thread, the assumption of constancy.

Problem 1. The earth's magnetic field can only deflect charged particles. Neutrinos are uncharged, which means that a change in the earth's magnetic field would have no impact on the decay rate change from neutrinos.Your new 'laws' won't work if the effect is caused by uncharged particles.

(Charged particles wouldn't be able to pass through the earth to create the night-time observations mentioned in the article)

Problem 2. Follow up investigations have failed to find supporting evidence that distance from the sun makes a difference in decay rates.http://donuts.berkel...rs/EarthSun.pdfIn conclusion, we find no evidence for correlations between the rates for the decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations (2.5–37) times smaller than those observed in previous experiments [1–3]. Our results strongly disfavor the suggestions by Jenkins et al. [4] of an annual variation based on a previously unobserved field produced by the Sun or the annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos reaching the Earth. Recently, Cooper [8] performed a very clever analysis of decay power data obtained from the 238Pu thermoelectric generator aboard the Cassini spacecraft. The results of this analysis also strongly disagree with the hypothesis of a correlation between nuclear decay rates and the distance of the source to the Sun.

Thanks for your logical points. I think the problem with the Jenkins hypothesis is trying to relate the fluctuations with neutrinos. If you look at a diagram of where earth is most vulnerable to the solar wind during solar flares or even generally, you will see that its in the North Pole and South Pole regions, but the wind curves slightly around the globe to the rear, striking earth with most force in the night-time region of earth, not the sun-facing half. So it would be charged particles that have come around the earth, and not neutrinos that have come through the earth, that cause the fluctuations in the decay rate at night. This would also explain the fluctuations relating to mid-winter, and yet not related to the earth-sun distance. Winter is when the higher latitudes are least vulnerable to the charged particles of the solar wind and so decay would speed up.

Problem 3. The amount of variation suggested is too small to change radiometric dates.

Even at 3% during a solar wind there is a massive exponential effect. But when you take into account the virtual total protection of a 300% increase in the magnetic field strength from the the charged particles of a solar wind, the age differences of rock would be massive compared to current assumptions. Remember you have to simultaneously change the rate and the half life when re-adjusting a decay rate, there is an exponential effect.

Thanks for your logical points. I think the problem with the Jenkins hypothesis is trying to relate the fluctuations with neutrinos. If you look at a diagram of where earth is most vulnerable to the solar wind during solar flares or even generally, you will see that its in the North Pole and South Pole regions, but the wind curves slightly around the globe to the rear, striking earth with most force in the night-time region of earth, not the sun-facing half. So it would be charged particles that have come around the earth, and not neutrinos that have come through the earth, that cause the fluctuations in the decay rate at night. This would also explain the fluctuations relating to mid-winter, and yet not related to the earth-sun distance. Winter is when the higher latitudes are least vulnerable to the charged particles of the solar wind and so decay would speed up.

The thinking that neutrinos would be responsible is due to the fact that they are basically the only solar particle that could reach the experimenters at night and indoors.Do you have any source for how much of the charged solar wind ever reaches the surface of the earth? Everything I can find states that no charged solar wind particles reach the surface of the earth. To go further, I'd feel quite confident in stating that exactly 0% of charged solar wind particles pass through walls into buildings where decay rate measurements are made, for the same reason they can't travel through the planet or other solid matter.

Even if we assume that solar wind reached the earth surface and affected decay rates at the surface, you'd have the problem that solar wind would only impact the surface and not affect anything buried underground. Most dating samples come from material that has spent time buried.

There's also the problem of why no tests of electromagnetic fields show similar effects. In terms of field strength for a lab experiment there's nothing particularly special about earth's magnetic field that a common refrigerator magnet couldn't match. If you actually think your idea has merit all you need is a radiation source (granite counter-tops would probably work), a household magnet and a geiger counter. , Measure the radiation without the magnet, then place the magnet on top of the decay source and see if the radiation level changes by a few percent or more.

Another cheap alternative would be to take a piece of wood from a tree (cost: free), cut it into two pieces(cost: free), place one piece next to a magnet (cost: $1-$20 depending on magnet), and one piece not next to a magnet. Wait a few years (cost: free but boring). Then ask a lab to date the two pieces (cost: $200-$400). If the dates come back different congratulations, you get to be one of the most famous people in the history of the world.

Even at 3% during a solar wind there is a massive exponential effect. But when you take into account the virtual total protection of a 300% increase in the magnetic field strength from the the charged particles of a solar wind, the age differences of rock would be massive compared to current assumptions. Remember you have to simultaneously change the rate and the half life when re-adjusting a decay rate, there is an exponential effect.

A 3% difference in half life would only change dates by 3%. For a young earth the difference in half life would need to be around 45,000,000%. Remember also that there's not only no confirming evidence that these rates have actually changed even by 3%, but instead that all tests of past decay rates via observation of past decays in distant stars indicate that rates have been constant.

N(t) is the remaining amount of decaying substanceN(0) is the initial amount of decaying substancet = aget(1/2) = half life

We directly measure N(t) so it'll be whatever we measure regardless of half life.For most dating mechanisms we determine N(0) based on the chemical/physical properties of the material, which won't change even if the half life changes.The only variables that can change based on half life are t and t(1/2), which means that any change in half life is going to produce a equal change in age. i.e. a 3% change in half life corresponds to a 3% change in age.

Here's an example:If there was 10kg of a substance and there is now 5, the equation is 5 = 10 * (.5) ^ x. Where x = t/t(1/2)It should be obvious that x must equal 1 which means that t = t(1/2).Now change the half life to be 3% smaller. The age must also be 3% smaller because x still must be 1.

The thinking that neutrinos would be responsible is due to the fact that they are basically the only solar particle that could reach the experimenters at night and indoors.Do you have any source for how much of the charged solar wind ever reaches the surface of the earth? Everything I can find states that no charged solar wind particles reach the surface of the earth. To go further, I'd feel quite confident in stating that exactly 0% of charged solar wind particles pass through walls into buildings where decay rate measurements are made, for the same reason they can't travel through the planet or other solid matter.

Even if we assume that solar wind reached the earth surface and affected decay rates at the surface, you'd have the problem that solar wind would only impact the surface and not affect anything buried underground. Most dating samples come from material that has spent time buried.

Thanks for all your probing questions. When you make good points, I'm forced to research more, which is a good thing. The primary cosmic rays do not reach the surface of the earth , yet there are secondary rays or particles that are produced from the collisions in the atmosphere , the main component which are muons. Muons are charged and are very penetrating.

There's also the problem of why no tests of electromagnetic fields show similar effects. In terms of field strength for a lab experiment there's nothing particularly special about earth's magnetic field that a common refrigerator magnet couldn't match. If you actually think your idea has merit all you need is a radiation source (granite counter-tops would probably work), a household magnet and a geiger counter. , Measure the radiation without the magnet, then place the magnet on top of the decay source and see if the radiation level changes by a few percent or more.

Another cheap alternative would be to take a piece of wood from a tree (cost: free), cut it into two pieces(cost: free), place one piece next to a magnet (cost: $1-$20 depending on magnet), and one piece not next to a magnet. Wait a few years (cost: free but boring). Then ask a lab to date the two pieces (cost: $200-$400). If the dates come back different congratulations, you get to be one of the most famous people in the history of the world.

Have you got any evidence that thousands of miles of magnetic field can be simulated in a laboratory? The sheer size of the magnetic field would make a huge difference. Surely the principle is that if you try to shoot a bullet through a metal barrier, its easier than trying to shoot it through twenty metal barriers. Have they really simulated an entire massive magnetic field in a laboratory? Your logic is not convincing enough.

Not only that, the solar wind reacts differently to the magnetic field than streams of muons, which are the localized particles.

A 3% difference in half life would only change dates by 3%.

I'm referring to a 3% difference in the decay rate, and its effect on the half-life

For a young earth the difference in half life would need to be around 45,000,000%. Remember also that there's not only no confirming evidence that these rates have actually changed even by 3%, but instead that all tests of past decay rates via observation of past decays in distant stars indicate that rates have been constant.

Like I said in the opening post, they haven't simulated an entire magnetic field yet. Neither have they quantified the solar wind/decay rate effects.

You are referring to a 3% slowdown in rates caused by the solar flares, I'm referring to the 300% increase in protection from the solar wind in Jurassic and earlier times that would SPEED UP decay. Neither of us know the percentage effect this would have on the rates.

N(t) is the remaining amount of decaying substanceN(0) is the initial amount of decaying substancet = aget(1/2) = half life

We directly measure N(t) so it'll be whatever we measure regardless of half life.For most dating mechanisms we determine N(0) based on the chemical/physical properties of the material, which won't change even if the half life changes.The only variables that can change based on half life are t and t(1/2), which means that any change in half life is going to produce a equal change in age. i.e. a 3% change in half life corresponds to a 3% change in age.

Here's an example:If there was 10kg of a substance and there is now 5, the equation is 5 = 10 * (.5) ^ x. Where x = t/t(1/2)It should be obvious that x must equal 1 which means that t = t(1/2).Now change the half life to be 3% smaller. The age must also be 3% smaller because x still must be 1.

Where does the half-life come from? Its a calculation based on exponential projections of the initial measured rate of decay. If that rate changes by 3% it will have more than a 3% effect on the half-life measurement.

By focusing on the half life you are missing the point that they have found changes to the decay rate itself, which exponentially effects the half-life.

Thanks for all your probing questions. When you make good points, I'm forced to research more, which is a good thing. The primary cosmic rays do not reach the surface of the earth , yet there are secondary rays or particles that are produced from the collisions in the atmosphere , the main component which are muons. Muons are charged and are very penetrating.

You initially mentioned solar wind, now you are bringing up cosmic rays. These are not the same thing. Solar wind is not energetic enough to produce muons, while cosmic rays are. The vast majority (99+%) of cosmic rays that hit earth come from space, not the sun. Because of this, there'd be no virtually no change in cosmic ray intensity and therefore no change in muon production from solar processes or solar distances. Cosmic rays are also energetic enough that they can pass through earth's magnetic field without much difficulty. An increase in earth's magnetic field wouldn't do much in terms of reducing atmospheric impacts or muon production.

Have you got any evidence that thousands of miles of magnetic field can be simulated in a laboratory? The sheer size of the magnetic field would make a huge difference. Surely the principle is that if you try to shoot a bullet through a metal barrier, its easier than trying to shoot it through twenty metal barriers. Have they really simulated an entire massive magnetic field in a laboratory? Your logic is not convincing enough.

Not only that, the solar wind reacts differently to the magnetic field than streams of muons, which are the localized particles.

it's the energy that matters, not the volume of the field. To use your analogy, all we need to simulate 20 metal barriers is a single 20x stronger metal barrier.

You were originally talking about low energy particles like solar wind, in which case a simple neodymium magnet placed close enough should be sufficient to deflect them away from a sample. (the earth's magnetic field at the surface is around .00003 Tesla, a common neodymium magnet has a field of around 1 Tesla at it's surface)If you instead want to discuss high energy cosmic rays or the secondary effects, they aren't produced by the sun and don't have much trouble reaching the atmosphere through planetary magnetic fields.

I'm referring to a 3% difference in the decay rate, and its effect on the half-life

Like I said in the opening post, they haven't simulated an entire magnetic field yet. Neither have they quantified the solar wind/decay rate effects.

You are referring to a 3% slowdown in rates caused by the solar flares, I'm referring to the 300% increase in protection from the solar wind in Jurassic and earlier times that would SPEED UP decay. Neither of us know the percentage effect this would have on the rates.

As mentioned above, solar wind can't produce muons, so you are still lacking a mechanism for how solar wind would have any affect on decay rates. I also provided a link in my first post showing that there was no evidence for a solar-related effect on decay rates. In the absence of any plausible mechanism and any conclusive evidence of an effect, it can be safely concluded there is no effect.

Where does the half-life come from? Its a calculation based on exponential projections of the initial measured rate of decay. If that rate changes by 3% it will have more than a 3% effect on the half-life measurement.

By focusing on the half life you are missing the point that they have found changes to the decay rate itself, which exponentially effects the half-life.

http://en.wikipedia....ponential_decayHalf life and decay rate are basically inverses of each other.decay rate = 1/mean lifetimeordecay rate = ln(2) / half-life. Note that ln(2) is a constant so the two variables are proportional to each other. i.e. a 3% change in decay rate corresponds to a 3% change in half-life.

I think you may be getting mixed up between decay rate and decay count (the rate vs the raw number of particle decays). It's the decay count, not decay rate which would have a exponential effect on half life. However, if someone says that something decayed 3% faster it almost always means they determined a half life or decay rate 3% different from normal. It's very uncommon to try and compare total number of decay events since that would vary based on time and sample size.

You initially mentioned solar wind, now you are bringing up cosmic rays. These are not the same thing. Solar wind is not energetic enough to produce muons, while cosmic rays are. The vast majority (99+%) of cosmic rays that hit earth come from space, not the sun. Because of this, there'd be no virtually no change in cosmic ray intensity and therefore no change in muon production from solar processes or solar distances. Cosmic rays are also energetic enough that they can pass through earth's magnetic field without much difficulty. An increase in earth's magnetic field wouldn't do much in terms of reducing atmospheric impacts or muon production.

Once again thank you for your good points and logical thinking. I see you are correct that muons are mainly caused by cosmic rays rather than the solar wind, but sometimes muons can be caused by a particularly strong stream of solar protons. There is also an inverse relationship between the solar wind and cosmic rays, when at times a solar flare can slow down cosmic rays and reduce their influence on earth. So depending on the circumstances, a solar flare can both increase or decrease the production of muons. The decrease of cosmic ray intensity caused by solar flares actually has a name and is a subject of ongoing research, its called the Forbush Decrease.

In the particular example in the opening post of the solar flare on 13 December 2006 we see that this particular flare was specifically associated with a powerful solar proton event, fast protons are normally associated with the production of muons. During the night of 13th Dec there was a subsequent sharp growth of cosmic flux resulting in a spike in muon levels. This was recorded in Moscow. During that same night in Indiana we had a sudden drop in decay rates.

Taking into account that this change in decay rates on 13th December 2006 requires a particle that recorded a change during that night, and also can penetrate through buildings, muons do seem like the culprit.

"By our estimates, the muon increase onthe URAGAN godoscope was caused by solarprotons with similar values of rigidity"

it's the energy that matters, not the volume of the field. To use your analogy, all we need to simulate 20 metal barriers is a single 20x stronger metal barrier.

Maybe, I'm not convinced yet that they actually have accurately simulated the behaviour of a planet's magnetic field in a laboratory. My logic says shape and consistency would also have an effect, not just the net strength of the force field.

If you instead want to discuss high energy cosmic rays or the secondary effects, they aren't produced by the sun and don't have much trouble reaching the atmosphere through planetary magnetic fields.

Cosmic rays are also affected by the magnetic field, many particles are captured and many particles are deflected by our magnetic field. Unlike the solar wind which hardly penetrates unless there's a flare, many cosmic rays do continually penetrate, but the magnetic field does still have a protecting effect:http://www.esa.int/e...4W1V7D7F_0.html"The most energetic cosmic rays are dangerous because they are ionising radiation. Fortunately, on Earth we have two very effective lines of defence: the Earth’s magnetic field and its atmosphere.If we pass a current down a wire between the poles of a magnet, the wire will move at right angles to both the magnetic field and the current. Similarly, if we fired a beam of electrons into the magnetic field the electrons would move. The Earth’s magnetic field does a similar job. The charged particles in cosmic rays are deflected by the magnetic field and many are prevented from hitting the atmosphere directly"

I also provided a link in my first post showing that there was no evidence for a solar-related effect on decay rates.

Your link showed that distance did not contribute towards the solar effect, that's all. ie your link revealed that there must be another reason for the accurately recorded seasonal variations in decay rates recorded by Purdue University. The elliptical orbit suggestion does not explain the seasonal fluctuations.

This seasonal effect on decay rates is possibly because muons could be more rapidly formed where the tilt of the earth and therefore the magnetic field's vulnerability is towards the sun (summer). This would be reflected as follows: in summer there are more muons and less decay, in winter less muons more decay.

Once again thank you for your good points and logical thinking. I see you are correct that muons are mainly caused by cosmic rays rather than the solar wind, but sometimes muons can be caused by a particularly strong stream of solar protons. There is also an inverse relationship between the solar wind and cosmic rays, when at times a solar flare can slow down cosmic rays and reduce their influence on earth. So depending on the circumstances, a solar flare can both increase or decrease the production of muons. The decrease of cosmic ray intensity caused by solar flares actually has a name and is a subject of ongoing research, its called the Forbush Decrease.

In the particular example in the opening post of the solar flare on 13 December 2006 we see that this particular flare was specifically associated with a powerful solar proton event, fast protons are normally associated with the production of muons. During the night of 13th Dec there was a subsequent sharp growth of cosmic flux resulting in a spike in muon levels. This was recorded in Moscow. During that same night in Indiana we had a sudden drop in decay rates.

Taking into account that this change in decay rates on 13th December 2006 requires a particle that recorded a change during that night, and also can penetrate through buildings, muons do seem like the culprit.

"By our estimates, the muon increase onthe URAGAN godoscope was caused by solarprotons with similar values of rigidity"

Firstly, here's a important piece of information from your original link about changed decay rates:..."a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare."

They claim the effect started on Dec 11/12, not Dec 13. The Dec 13 muon spike couldn't be the cause of any changed decay rate since the spike occurred after the claimed change. Note also that your link uses UCT which is only 5 hours ahead of US eastern time so even if you want to adjust for time zone differences there still 20+ hours of 'effect' preceding your suggested 'cause'.

Secondly, testing for decay rate changes during those exact same Dec 2006 flares was done in other labs and no change was found.http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295Results obtained with multichannel installation created for long-term studies of various processes, are collated with the data published by J.H. Jenkins and E.Fischbach, who found a decrease of 54Mn radioactivity near the time of series of solar flares between 5 and 17 December 2006. Analysis of the data from our installation in December 2006 has not revealed any deviations from the usual behaviour of the count rates for 90Sr-90Y, 60Co and 239Pu sources

Maybe, I'm not convinced yet that they actually have accurately simulated the behaviour of a planet's magnetic field in a laboratory. My logic says shape and consistency would also have an effect, not just the net strength of the force field.

To test your idea that an increased planetary magnetic field would block some particle that made atoms more stable all that would be needed is something that could block that particle. Whether it was an accurate simulation of a planetary magnetic field would be irrelevant.

Cosmic rays are also affected by the magnetic field, many particles are captured and many particles are deflected by our magnetic field. Unlike the solar wind which hardly penetrates unless there's a flare, many cosmic rays do continually penetrate, but the magnetic field does still have a protecting effect:http://www.esa.int/e...4W1V7D7F_0.html"The most energetic cosmic rays are dangerous because they are ionising radiation. Fortunately, on Earth we have two very effective lines of defence: the Earth’s magnetic field and its atmosphere.If we pass a current down a wire between the poles of a magnet, the wire will move at right angles to both the magnetic field and the current. Similarly, if we fired a beam of electrons into the magnetic field the electrons would move. The Earth’s magnetic field does a similar job. The charged particles in cosmic rays are deflected by the magnetic field and many are prevented from hitting the atmosphere directly"

The atmosphere does most of the blocking of cosmic rays, not the magnetosphere. There is some deflection but depending on the amount of energy contained by the particles and their angle of approach it's often not enough to divert them away from earth completely. There's also no way to deflect particles arriving at the poles regardless of field strength since magnetic deflection requires motion perpendicular to field lines, rather than parallel.www.minimagnetosphere.org/downloads/pdfs/15Parker.pdfContrary to popular misconception, we are not significantly shielded by the geomagnetic dipole field. If the geomagnetic field were switched off, the ionizing radiation (mu mesons) at sea level would increase by about 10 percent at middle and low latitudes. The radiation would not increase at all at high geomagnetic latitudes, where the geomagnetic field provides no shielding anyway. The ten percent increase would put the intensity at about the same level as currently “enjoyed” in Denver, a mile above sea level

Your link showed that distance did not contribute towards the solar effect, that's all. ie your link revealed that there must be another reason for the accurately recorded seasonal variations in decay rates recorded by Purdue University. The elliptical orbit suggestion does not explain the seasonal fluctuations.

This seasonal effect on decay rates is possibly because muons could be more rapidly formed where the tilt of the earth and therefore the magnetic field's vulnerability is towards the sun (summer). This would be reflected as follows: in summer there are more muons and less decay, in winter less muons more decay.

If there were any effect from magnetic shielding/solar wind/solar cosmic rays/etc. then the Cassini probe would have shown a variation as it got further away from the sun and the intensity of effects from the sun decreased. As that paper stated, there's been no change in decay rates of the power source on the probe.

The seasonal effect proposed by Fischbach was not measured by him or Purdue University. He looked at old data from other labs to try and find trends. He's trying to claim an effect based on measurements not made by him and with no way to check the equipment used for periodic variations (such as expansion due to heat during summer).

Notice that the data was not recorded by Purdue University.Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?

Firstly, here's a important piece of information from your original link about changed decay rates:..."a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare."

They claim the effect started on Dec 11/12, not Dec 13. The Dec 13 muon spike couldn't be the cause of any changed decay rate since the spike occurred after the claimed change. Note also that your link uses UCT which is only 5 hours ahead of US eastern time so even if you want to adjust for time zone differences there still 20+ hours of 'effect' preceding your suggested 'cause'

The actual time for drops in decay is the evening of 12th December. The Purdue researchers defined the x-ray peak at an earlier time than the Moscow measurements. Their data exactly records the co-inciding of the x-ray peaks with the decay rate drops beyond any statistical co-incidence:http://arxiv.org/ftp...8/0808.3156.pdf

Secondly, testing for decay rate changes during those exact same Dec 2006 flares was done in other labs and no change was found.http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295Results obtained with multichannel installation created for long-term studies of various processes, are collated with the data published by J.H. Jenkins and E.Fischbach, who found a decrease of 54Mn radioactivity near the time of series of solar flares between 5 and 17 December 2006. Analysis of the data from our installation in December 2006 has not revealed any deviations from the usual behaviour of the count rates for 90Sr-90Y, 60Co and 239Pu sources

Exactly! that's why muons make more sense than neutrinos because neutrinos have a consistency about them (less affected by outside factors) , muons are effected by proton streams making their way through the north pole gap in the magnetic field. A strong proton stream can penetrate the atmosphere there during solar flares and have a localized effect on muon levels in northern latitudes. If you look at pictures of earth, the aurora borealis forms in a general circular pattern, but peaking at the midnight position, but there is no guaranteed pattern of aerial bombardment from the solar flare. Excess solar particles could vary from place to place depending on latitude and weather patterns. This would explain the variation detected on earth.

In this article , it is hypothesized that the internal earth would continuously decay and lose heat without an external source of electrical energy to maintain the heat, and it is the bombardment from external muons that maintains the energy levels of deeper areas of earth:http://fgservices194...erground-muons/

To test your idea that an increased planetary magnetic field would block some particle that made atoms more stable all that would be needed is something that could block that particle. Whether it was an accurate simulation of a planetary magnetic field would be irrelevant.

Yes that's correct. If you could block muons then you could test to see if radioactive decay speeds up.

The atmosphere does most of the blocking of cosmic rays, not the magnetosphere. There is some deflection but depending on the amount of energy contained by the particles and their angle of approach it's often not enough to divert them away from earth completely. There's also no way to deflect particles arriving at the poles regardless of field strength since magnetic deflection requires motion perpendicular to field lines, rather than parallel.www.minimagnetosphere.org/downloads/pdfs/15Parker.pdfContrary to popular misconception, we are not significantly shielded by the geomagnetic dipole field. If the geomagnetic field were switched off, the ionizing radiation (mu mesons) at sea level would increase by about 10 percent at middle and low latitudes. The radiation would not increase at all at high geomagnetic latitudes, where the geomagnetic field provides no shielding anyway. The ten percent increase would put the intensity at about the same level as currently “enjoyed” in Denver, a mile above sea level

I see 10% as significant, thanks for the info:Turn magnetic field Off = 10 % increase in muonsCurrent magnetic field = current level of muonsDouble the magnetic field = possible 10% dropTriple the magnetic field = possible 20% drop in muons

Who knows the relationship, its unquantified yet. And who knows what a 10% change to muon levels will do to decay rates. I'm not saying that it is muons, but I feel muons are more likely than neutrinos to effect decay.

If there were any effect from magnetic shielding/solar wind/solar cosmic rays/etc. then the Cassini probe would have shown a variation as it got further away from the sun and the intensity of effects from the sun decreased. As that paper stated, there's been no change in decay rates of the power source on the probe.

I have already agreed distance from the sun has no effect. I believe the sun produces a steady stream of neutrinos, and so I agree this puts doubt on the neutrino theory. And we have both already agreed that muons are created mainly by cosmic rays. I pointed out that they are also created by high speed proton excesses during solar flares as detected in Moscow. This explains the solar flare/muon relationship. The magnetic field/muon relationship is also confirmed above by you.

The actual time for drops in decay is the evening of 12th December. The Purdue researchers defined the x-ray peak at an earlier time than the Moscow measurements. Their data exactly records the co-inciding of the x-ray peaks with the decay rate drops beyond any statistical co-incidence:http://arxiv.org/ftp...8/0808.3156.pdf

If you read that paper they explicitly state that because the effect started before the flares and didn't vary as the earth rotates, the effect can't come from known charged particles (i.e. muons).

Significantly, the monotonic decline of the counting rate in the 40 hours preceding the dip occurred while the Earth went through 1.7 revolutions, and yet there are no obvious diurnal or other periodic effects. These observations support our inference that this effect may have arisen from neutrinos, or some neutrino-like particles, and not from any conventionally known electromagnetic effect or other source, such as known charged particles.

If you look at the graphs in that paper you'll see Dec 5 x-ray spikes exceeding those on Dec 12 with no change in decay rates. You'll also see that the change you are talking about started before the x-ray spike on Dec 12. Each dot represents 4 hours, so the 9-10 dot sequence of reduced counts before the x ray spike represents more than a day of time where your suggested effect is happening before your suggested cause.

Exactly! that's why muons make more sense than neutrinos because neutrinos have a consistency about them (less affected by outside factors) , muons are effected by proton streams making their way through the north pole gap in the magnetic field. A strong proton stream can penetrate the atmosphere there during solar flares and have a localized effect on muon levels in northern latitudes. If you look at pictures of earth, the aurora borealis forms in a general circular pattern, but peaking at the midnight position, but there is no guaranteed pattern of aerial bombardment from the solar flare. Excess solar particles could vary from place to place depending on latitude and weather patterns. This would explain the variation detected on earth.

See above, the lack of variation that corresponded to earth's rotation means it couldn't be muons. It would need to be something for which the entire earth is essentially transparent, which means neutrinos.

In this article , it is hypothesized that the internal earth would continuously decay and lose heat without an external source of electrical energy to maintain the heat, and it is the bombardment from external muons that maintains the energy levels of deeper areas of earth:http://fgservices194...erground-muons/

That page appears to be an electric universe site. That's a largely discredited crank-science.

Yes that's correct. If you could block muons then you could test to see if radioactive decay speeds up.

http://www.egglescli...s/srwrkans.html (bottom of the page)Muons have a average lifespan of 2 microseconds. At 98% light speed, with relativistic time dilation, assuming zero collisions they would have a average range of about 10,000 meters. The earth is 12,000,000 meters across. Solar protons will impact high latitudes and the day side of the planet far more than the night side. The earth itself acts like a solar muon blocker due to its size, so the lack of any day/night variation in decay rates means there's no effect from muons.

This is precisely what the paper you linked to states as a reason why the effect cannot be resulting from known charged particles.

I see 10% as significant, thanks for the info:Turn magnetic field Off = 10 % increase in muonsCurrent magnetic field = current level of muonsDouble the magnetic field = possible 10% dropTriple the magnetic field = possible 20% drop in muons

Who knows the relationship, its unquantified yet. And who knows what a 10% change to muon levels will do to decay rates. I'm not saying that it is muons, but I feel muons are more likely than neutrinos to effect decay.

See above for why muons are not candidates for the proposed changes in decay rate.

I have already agreed distance from the sun has no effect. I believe the sun produces a steady stream of neutrinos, and so I agree this puts doubt on the neutrino theory. And we have both already agreed that muons are created mainly by cosmic rays. I pointed out that they are also created by high speed proton excesses during solar flares as detected in Moscow. This explains the solar flare/muon relationship. The magnetic field/muon relationship is also confirmed above by you.

The intensity of solar cosmic rays (number of particles per unit area) decreases as distance from the sun increases. That's why if you agree that distance from the sun has no effect, you are agreeing that changes in quantity of solar cosmic rays have no effect.

If you read that paper they explicitly state that because the effect started before the flares and didn't vary as the earth rotates, the effect can't come from known charged particles (i.e. muons).

Significantly, the monotonic decline of the counting rate in the 40 hours preceding the dip occurred while the Earth went through 1.7 revolutions, and yet there are no obvious diurnal or other periodic effects. These observations support our inference that this effect may have arisen from neutrinos, or some neutrino-like particles, and not from any conventionally known electromagnetic effect or other source, such as known charged particles.

If you look at the graphs in that paper you'll see Dec 5 x-ray spikes exceeding those on Dec 12 with no change in decay rates. You'll also see that the change you are talking about started before the x-ray spike on Dec 12. Each dot represents 4 hours, so the 9-10 dot sequence of reduced counts before the x ray spike represents more than a day of time where your suggested effect is happening before your suggested cause.

This is why I said they seem to have been incorrectly focusing on x-rays. The proton flux arrived at the same time as the x-rays, which they seemed to ignore. The early detection of the solar flare was simultaneously x-rays and protons:a solar flare was detected on 13 December 2006 at 02:37 UT (21:37 EST on 12 December) by the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-10 and GOES-11). Spikes in the x-ray and proton fluxes were recorded on all of the GOES satellites

See above, the lack of variation that corresponded to earth's rotation means it couldn't be muons. It would need to be something for which the entire earth is essentially transparent, which means neutrinos.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here, you already proved that there was variation when you showed me that other sites have not recorded any changes? Now you seem to be saying the data requires an "entire earth" effect. If one site records a steady effect, and another site records no effect then there is a localized effect. This is consistent with a proton barrage in December where the distribution is steady around an entire circular high latitude region, even at night. It is very similar to an aurora with this circular solar interaction. This is not consistent with neutrinos that would have an earth-wide effect.

http://www.egglescli...s/srwrkans.html (bottom of the page)Muons have a average lifespan of 2 microseconds. At 98% light speed, with relativistic time dilation, assuming zero collisions they would have a average range of about 10,000 meters. The earth is 12,000,000 meters across. Solar protons will impact high latitudes and the day side of the planet far more than the night side. The earth itself acts like a solar muon blocker due to its size, so the lack of any day/night variation in decay rates means there's no effect from muons.

I already dealt with this, proton bombardments often affect most spots in the entire northern latitudes at the same time. This includes nighttime regions. The solar wind is curved around the poles by the magnetic field and hits earth. Sometimes the midnight spot can be the most vulnerable, sometimes its evenly spread. their neutrino assumption assumed the particles went through the earth even though there can be midnight peaks of charged particles.

The intensity of solar cosmic rays (number of particles per unit area) decreases as distance from the sun increases. That's why if you agree that distance from the sun has no effect, you are agreeing that changes in quantity of solar cosmic rays have no effect.

I think you have misunderstood me. I was convinced right in the beginning of this discussion that there are two incoming flows, the solar wind and cosmic rays. solar winds are not a significant source of muons, solar flares and cosmic rays mainly cause muons. They need to be fast protons to get past the magnetic field and normal solar wind does not do that in significant numbers. Thus distance has no effect, distance is related to normal solar wind. Its solar flares and cosmic rays that effect rates of decay. All the evidence I have put forward so far is consistent with this.

More muons with solar flares.Less muons with strong magnetic fields.

Both of these relationships I have shown.Seasonal effects are just gradual trends shown by averages, when the tilt of the earth will generally allow a few more protons to penetrate when there are regular solar flares. statistically this effect shows up as a seasonal trend.

Muons are also more consistent with the lack of consistency recorded across the entire earth with changes to the decay effects.

If you read that paper they explicitly state that because the effect started before the flares and didn't vary as the earth rotates, the effect can't come from known charged particles (i.e. muons).

Significantly, the monotonic decline of the counting rate in the 40 hours preceding the dip occurred while the Earth went through 1.7 revolutions, and yet there are no obvious diurnal or other periodic effects. These observations support our inference that this effect may have arisen from neutrinos, or some neutrino-like particles, and not from any conventionally known electromagnetic effect or other source, such as known charged particles.

If you look at the graphs in that paper you'll see Dec 5 x-ray spikes exceeding those on Dec 12 with no change in decay rates. You'll also see that the change you are talking about started before the x-ray spike on Dec 12. Each dot represents 4 hours, so the 9-10 dot sequence of reduced counts before the x ray spike represents more than a day of time where your suggested effect is happening before your suggested cause.

This is why I said they seem to have been incorrectly focusing on x-rays. The proton flux arrived at the same time as the x-rays, which they seemed to ignore. The early detection of the solar flare was simultaneously x-rays and protons:a solar flare was detected on 13 December 2006 at 02:37 UT (21:37 EST on 12 December) by the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-10 and GOES-11). Spikes in the x-ray and proton fluxes were recorded on all of the GOES satellites

See above, the lack of variation that corresponded to earth's rotation means it couldn't be muons. It would need to be something for which the entire earth is essentially transparent, which means neutrinos.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here, you already proved that there was variation when you showed me that other sites have not recorded any changes? Now you seem to be saying the data requires an "entire earth" effect. If one site records a steady effect, and another site records no effect then there is a localized effect. This is consistent with a proton barrage in December where the distribution is steady around an entire circular high latitude region, even at night. It is very similar to an aurora with this circular solar interaction. This is not consistent with neutrinos that would have an earth-wide effect.

http://www.egglescli...s/srwrkans.html (bottom of the page)Muons have a average lifespan of 2 microseconds. At 98% light speed, with relativistic time dilation, assuming zero collisions they would have a average range of about 10,000 meters. The earth is 12,000,000 meters across. Solar protons will impact high latitudes and the day side of the planet far more than the night side. The earth itself acts like a solar muon blocker due to its size, so the lack of any day/night variation in decay rates means there's no effect from muons.

I already dealt with this, proton bombardments often affect most spots in the entire northern latitudes at the same time. This includes nighttime regions. The solar wind is curved around the poles by the magnetic field and hits earth. Sometimes the midnight spot can be the most vulnerable, sometimes its evenly spread. their neutrino assumption assumed the particles went through the earth even though there can be midnight peaks of charged particles.

The intensity of solar cosmic rays (number of particles per unit area) decreases as distance from the sun increases. That's why if you agree that distance from the sun has no effect, you are agreeing that changes in quantity of solar cosmic rays have no effect.

I think you have misunderstood me. I was convinced right in the beginning of this discussion that there are two incoming flows, the solar wind and cosmic rays. solar winds are not a significant source of muons, solar flares and cosmic rays mainly cause muons. They need to be fast protons to get past the magnetic field and normal solar wind does not do that in significant numbers. Thus distance has no effect, distance is related to normal solar wind. Its solar flares and cosmic rays that effect rates of decay. All the evidence I have put forward so far is consistent with this.

More muons with solar flares.Less muons with strong magnetic fields.

Both of these relationships I have shown.Seasonal effects are just gradual trends shown by averages, when the tilt of the earth will generally allow a few more protons to penetrate when there are regular solar flares. statistically this effect shows up as a seasonal trend.

Muons are also more consistent with the lack of consistency recorded across the entire earth with changes to the decay effects.

This is why I said they seem to have been incorrectly focusing on x-rays. The proton flux arrived at the same time as the x-rays, which they seemed to ignore. The early detection of the solar flare was simultaneously x-rays and protons:a solar flare was detected on 13 December 2006 at 02:37 UT (21:37 EST on 12 December) by the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-10 and GOES-11). Spikes in the x-ray and proton fluxes were recorded on all of the GOES satellites

I don't think you are recognizing the problem. The paper you are quoting is claiming that a change in decay rate started about 40 hours before the solar flare happened and before any spike in x-rays or protons reached earth. That means that it can't have been a spike in x-rays or protons creating that change. If solar protons were creating a change in decay rates they'd have to arrive at earth before they could cause any change.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here, you already proved that there was variation when you showed me that other sites have not recorded any changes? Now you seem to be saying the data requires an "entire earth" effect. If one site records a steady effect, and another site records no effect then there is a localized effect. This is consistent with a proton barrage in December where the distribution is steady around an entire circular high latitude region, even at night. It is very similar to an aurora with this circular solar interaction. This is not consistent with neutrinos that would have an earth-wide effect.

I already dealt with this, proton bombardments often affect most spots in the entire northern latitudes at the same time. This includes nighttime regions. The solar wind is curved around the poles by the magnetic field and hits earth. Sometimes the midnight spot can be the most vulnerable, sometimes its evenly spread. their neutrino assumption assumed the particles went through the earth even though there can be midnight peaks of charged particles.

The paper showing no change due to solar flares was to try and show you that there's reason to doubt the claims that solar flares have an effect on decay rates.

Solar protons are much more likely to impact the day side of earth's atmosphere instead of the night side. See page 4 of the below link showing a day:night ratio of anywhere from 2:1 to 15:1 at the antarctic where the difference between day/night impacts would be the smallest. For low latitude locations this ratio should be even higher in favor of day impacts since there's no direct impacts possible at night and less field lines leading to the surface at low latitudes.http://www.annalsofg...ticle/view/3486

If there were a real effect caused by solar protons there should be a variation consistent with the difference between day impacts and night impacts. There was no such variation detected.

I think you have misunderstood me. I was convinced right in the beginning of this discussion that there are two incoming flows, the solar wind and cosmic rays. solar winds are not a significant source of muons, solar flares and cosmic rays mainly cause muons. They need to be fast protons to get past the magnetic field and normal solar wind does not do that in significant numbers. Thus distance has no effect, distance is related to normal solar wind. Its solar flares and cosmic rays that effect rates of decay. All the evidence I have put forward so far is consistent with this.

More muons with solar flares.Less muons with strong magnetic fields.

Both of these relationships I have shown.Seasonal effects are just gradual trends shown by averages, when the tilt of the earth will generally allow a few more protons to penetrate when there are regular solar flares. statistically this effect shows up as a seasonal trend.

Muons are also more consistent with the lack of consistency recorded across the entire earth with changes to the decay effects.

The problem is that neither of those relationships have anything to do with the paper you are quoting as support for your idea. The effect in that paper starts before the flare and before any increase in muons would be possible.

As for the problem of distance, imagine this symbol < as showing the paths taken by two protons being emitted by a flare. One proton goes slightly upward, one goes slightly downward. As they get further and further from the sun, they get farther and farther apart. If you were standing right next to the sun with a bullseye on your chest, you might get hit by both protons because they'd still be very close together. If you moved further away, you might only get hit by one, if you moved even further away you might not get hit by either. The number of solar protons that hits a planet or a satellite will depend on the distance from the sun, the further the distance the more the protons are spread out and the fewer will hit any given target. This means that if there were a change in decay rates caused by the number of solar protons striking something, the further that object got from the sun, the less change would be caused. We have data from space probes that rely on radioactive decay for power, showing no change in decay rates as the probes travel away from the sun. If you agree that distance from the sun does not affect decay rates, then it can't be true that the number of solar protons impacts is related to decay rates.

At this stage I feel it's necessary to point out that I'm ignoring the problems in claiming that muons somehow make radioactive atoms more stable, there's no actual evidence that they do nor is there any theoretical basis for thinking they could.

I don't think you are recognizing the problem. The paper you are quoting is claiming that a change in decay rate started about 40 hours before the solar flare happened and before any spike in x-rays or protons reached earth. That means that it can't have been a spike in x-rays or protons creating that change. If solar protons were creating a change in decay rates they'd have to arrive at earth before they could cause any change.

I see why you are saying this, because the terminology used is misleading. They give the impression that the solar flare occurred at 3am on the 13th December. This was the early detection moment, recorded simultaneously in 3 different ways 41 hours before the ACTUAL solar flare. The first detection of the solar flare was a combination of at least three events that occurred about 41 hours before the actual solar flare, the actual solar flare occurred on the 14th December at 22h09 http://www.nasa.gov/...010/10-052.html whereas the early detection was actually a less visible flare of a muon excess at Moscow at 3am UT 13th December, a decay rate slowdown recorded at Purdue at 3am UT, and satellite records of x-rays and protons at 3am UT.

So the muon spike and the decay rate slowdown both occurred 41 hours before the solar flare of 14th December at 22h09

The paper showing no change due to solar flares was to try and show you that there's reason to doubt the claims that solar flares have an effect on decay rates

Solar protons are much more likely to impact the day side of earth's atmosphere instead of the night side. See page 4 of the below link showing a day:night ratio of anywhere from 2:1 to 15:1 at the antarctic where the difference between day/night impacts would be the smallest. For low latitude locations this ratio should be even higher in favor of day impacts since there's no direct impacts possible at night and less field lines leading to the surface at low latitudes.http://www.annalsofg...ticle/view/3486

If there were a real effect caused by solar protons there should be a variation consistent with the difference between day impacts and night impacts. There was no such variation detected.

You are very wrong here, there is such variation detected. See the picture below: fascinating exact seasonal and daily patterns in fluctuation of decay rates. http://wavewatching....hysics-edition/Please particularly note the decrease in decay at midday during June and July.This was a collaboration between the Geological survey of Israel and Purdue University. These are respectable institutions picking up definite patterns in fluctuations in decay rates. This evidence is now undeniable, decay rates fluctuate. And as you point out so well, solar protons also show these same variations, interesting that you are confirming my logic!

As for the problem of distance, imagine this symbol < as showing the paths taken by two protons being emitted by a flare. One proton goes slightly upward, one goes slightly downward. As they get further and further from the sun, they get farther and farther apart. If you were standing right next to the sun with a bullseye on your chest, you might get hit by both protons because they'd still be very close together. If you moved further away, you might only get hit by one, if you moved even further away you might not get hit by either. The number of solar protons that hits a planet or a satellite will depend on the distance from the sun, the further the distance the more the protons are spread out and the fewer will hit any given target. This means that if there were a change in decay rates caused by the number of solar protons striking something, the further that object got from the sun, the less change would be caused. We have data from space probes that rely on radioactive decay for power, showing no change in decay rates as the probes travel away from the sun. If you agree that distance from the sun does not affect decay rates, then it can't be true that the number of solar protons impacts is related to decay rates.

I thought we had this already covered? Muons are from cosmic rays, NOT solar winds. Muons are not protons, protons cause muons. I am saying there is a detectable relationship between muons and decay on earth, not protons and decay in space. Muons are not produced in quantities in space either, they are created when particles collide with earth's atmosphere.

At this stage I feel it's necessary to point out that I'm ignoring the problems in claiming that muons somehow make radioactive atoms more stable, there's no actual evidence that they do nor is there any theoretical basis for thinking they could.

No problem, I already dealt with all your objections and the evidence and correlation between muons and decay looks even stronger as our discussion progressed.

I see why you are saying this, because the terminology used is misleading. They give the impression that the solar flare occurred at 3am on the 13th December. This was the early detection moment, recorded simultaneously in 3 different ways 41 hours before the ACTUAL solar flare. The first detection of the solar flare was a combination of at least three events that occurred about 41 hours before the actual solar flare, the actual solar flare occurred on the 14th December at 22h09 http://www.nasa.gov/...010/10-052.html whereas the early detection was actually a less visible flare of a muon excess at Moscow at 3am UT 13th December, a decay rate slowdown recorded at Purdue at 3am UT, and satellite records of x-rays and protons at 3am UT.

So the muon spike and the decay rate slowdown both occurred 41 hours before the solar flare of 14th December at 22h09

The paper isn't misleading at all, you just have to read it. There were two flares, one on the 14 and one on the 12th. In both cases the claim is that the decrease in rates started before the flares.Here's the paper you quoted: arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3156.pdfScroll down to page 5.Look at the graphNotice the large red arrow saying "X3/4B Flare" and the date 12.12.06. Notice the second large red arrow saying "X1 Flare & CME" and the date 14.12.06.Notice the blue dots (each dot representing 4 hours) that show a decline BEFORE the flare on 12.12.06.

Scroll down to page 7 for a more obvious display of the same data but without the giant red labels of each flare and you can read "The solar flare at ~21:37 EST on 12 December is clearly visible, along with the precursor count-rate decline that precedes it.

Your argument requires time travel since solar protons (must travel at less than c) can't arrive before x rays (must travel at c) from the same event.

You are very wrong here, there is such variation detected. See the picture below: fascinating exact seasonal and daily patterns in fluctuation of decay rates. http://wavewatching....hysics-edition/Please particularly note the decrease in decay at midday during June and July.This was a collaboration between the Geological survey of Israel and Purdue University. These are respectable institutions picking up definite patterns in fluctuations in decay rates. This evidence is now undeniable, decay rates fluctuate. And as you point out so well, solar protons also show these same variations, interesting that you are confirming my logic!

About 1/3 of the way down the article it points out what I've already told you. The data used was not gathered by those institutions which means they have no way to check for periodic affects on the equipment. The article also points out that follow up investigations found no evidence to confirm the effect, so the effect is definitely deniable.

The downside of this is the lack of information on the care that went into collecting this data in the first place. I.e. it was repeatedly pointed out that experimenters should run a control to capture the background radiation and needed to understand and control for the environmental impact on their measuring devices. Relying on third party data means also relying on the reputation of the researchers who conducted the original experiments.When the original claims were made they triggered follow-up research. Some of it was inconclusive, some of it contradicted the findings and a measurement performed on the Cassini probe's 238Pu thermonuclear fuel clearly ruled out any sun-distance related influence on that alpha emitter.

I thought we had this already covered? Muons are from cosmic rays, NOT solar winds. Muons are not protons, protons cause muons. I am saying there is a detectable relationship between muons and decay on earth, not protons and decay in space. Muons are not produced in quantities in space either, they are created when particles collide with earth's atmosphere.

I've bolded a very important sentence that actually contradicts your entire position. I want you to consider the effects of your sentence compared with your claim. Your claim is that muons affect decay rates and that changes in quantities of muons result in changes in decay rates. Now go back to the sentence in bold and please answer this question, is the number of muons that impact/affect a radioactive element on a probe moving away from earth greater than, less than, or equal to the number of muons that impact/affect a radioactive element on earth?

If the number of muons is different then the decay rate on a probe should be different or your claim is wrong (we know the decay rate on the Cassinni probe isn't different).If the number of muons isn't different then your bolded sentence has some serious problems since there's no atmosphere around the probe.

Just wanted to throw this article in the fray as example of another possible cause of radiometric decay acceleration. Magnetic monopoles escaping the center of the earth during the flood due to magnetic field reversals.